Typical flawed logic. I did not submit it as THE benefit, but one of a myriad of benefits. The precedent is that we didn't have to deal directly with them for them to get in line and bow to US. Or others that we know of, and some that we will never know.
It's not an erroneous assumption. You think I'm uninformed? Pick an issue and I'll cut you to ribbons. :wink:
Best: Reagan - instrumental in ending the cold war; nuclear disarmament; rebuilt the military; tax reform Eisenhower: 8 years of prosperity and no war. What more could you want? Supported integration in Little Rock. Average: Kennedy: Bay of Pigs fiasco; Cuban Missile Crisis success; Strong foreign policy; fairly good economy, supported civil rigfhts legislation only when he felt it was politically safe Ford: Brought respect back to the White House, but not much else. Bush I: Stood up to Saddam in Gulf War, but blew it by calling a halt to the war 24 hours too soon, and failed to adequately support a coup that could have overthrown Saddam avoiding what we are now faced with. A pretty good economy until the very end. Raised taxes after campaigning on no new taxes. Carter: Inept but did not create any problems. Engineered the Israeli/Egyptian accord. Worst: Johnson: His incompentent management of the Vietnam led to defeat and split this nation for years; Engineered the war on poverty and lost it too, creating massive government spending that only served to run the nation into debt. Nixon: Could have been a great president, but his paranoia led to his downfall in Watergate, the worse scandal to hit the White House in our history. Bush II: Could have been a great president but his failure to listen to advisors has created the problems we now face in Iraq. His mistake was not going into Iraq; it was his poor management of it. Failed to limit spending through his veto contributing to a budget deficit. Responded to 9/11 through strength, calling for the war on terrorism, but probably would have been much better off had he limited the war to Afghanistan. Divided the nation when it should have been united behind the war on terrorism. Cost his party congressional leadership and perhaps the White House in 2008. Clinton: His primary accomplishment was the disgrace he brought to the White House.
A very good list, I would not change a thing with this. Clinton deserves a lot of credit for inheriting a sick economy from Bush I and creating the longest sustained economic advance since WWII, and balancing the budget, with low inflation, low unemployment, and low interest rates all in peacetime. Bush II has been wildly beneficial to segments of corp. america, big oil, defense, and big pharma, and very detrimental to middle american, with huge increases in health, college, gasoline, food, housing costs. Nixon lied so bad to the public during VN. His peace negotiations in Paris with the N. VN were a sham, we never really negotiated, it was to placate the public so he could drop move bombs and try to win it. We lost a lot of men we didn't have to, between the beginning of the negotiation and our withdrawal. Then Watergate, this man was sickly paranoid.
How about: Posted budget surpluses instead of deficits, 600 $Billion in deficit reduction. Won a war with Serbia without a single American casualty. Tried to kill bin Ladin twice with missile strikes before 9/11. Great economy, lowest inflation and unemployment in 25 years. Cut federal spending by 255 $Billion over four years.
Okay, Gun Control. I'll shoot you down...:grin: Second amendment gives an individual the right to bear arms. State & local laws Cannot supercede this constitutional right. Agree? Disagree? Care? Separate Thread?
And we had Iraq falling in line before the invasion. Here's a little history: Iraq had removed the weapons inspectors. Bush began to apply pressure to both Iraq and the U.N. (and rightly so) to allow the inspectors back in. Long story short, Iraq conceeded and allowed the weapons inspectors back in. Bush had succeeded. But that wasn't good enough. He insisted that Iraq turn over the weapons that they didn't have. Because guess what, the neo-con's arch enemy, Bill Clinton's policies had worked. There were no weapons. Rather than wait, Bush pulled the inspectors, and we invaded. Iraq wanted the illusion of WMD not for us, but Iran. You know, Iran, the islamic fundalmentalists reeking havoc in Iraq now? Now, explain that away without any revisionist history.
doesn't matter. It was the illusion that mattered. Just the appearance, whether accurate or not, was enough for them to lose their country. That was more powerful than Iraq actually having WMDs. Now, if you're a ruler of a 3rd world country toying with the idea of obtaining wmds, associating with terroist, etc., what would that lesson teach you?
Give me a break, it damn sure does matter when you are going to send American soldiers in to die, you don't do it for an illusion of a threat. There was no reason, once the weapons inspectors were back in, not to wait and find out if they actually had any weapons. Our contry was in no danger, there was no imminent threat. So are you trying to tell me that the billions we've spent, and the lives we've lost, to mention the crippled and the maimed, was all worth it?? Man, you need to wake up and smell what your bud Bush is shoveling.
Yes, it was worth it. Setting the precedent, selecting the playing field, and a nice addition was control of the Iraq oilfields. Iraq had many things going for it as a frontline in the war on terror. And a crucial booty in the end. Al Qaeda flocked to Iraq. And we lost lives as we lost lives on 9-11. Reality's hard to deal with, and tuff decisions are hard to stomach. But this isn't Never-Never Land. Do you think going into IRAQ prevented/averted terroist attacks on American soil? Also, only History will judge Bush jr. Not a fickle public with limited info.
